Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
The Court held that the builder had forfeited its right to file a written statement, but its right to participate in the proceedings was protected. The rigour of the rule of pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that no pleading shall raise any new ground or contain allegations inconsistent with previous pleadings. The builder did not seek permission to cross-examine the witness or raise grievance of denial of such opportunity. The builder could be permitted only to argue legal questions, lapses, and non-admissibility of evidence. The Court found no error in the NCDRC's decision, as the builder could not bring forth anything admissible due to the forfeiture order. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the formula for payment of compensation for delay in handing over possession of flats, directing the developer to pay interest at 6% per annum from the due date till the date of offering possession.
The Court held that the builder had forfeited its right to file a written statement, but its right to participate in the proceedings was protected. The rigour of the rule of pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that no pleading shall raise any new ground or contain allegations inconsistent with previous pleadings. The builder did not seek permission to cross-examine the witness or raise grievance of denial of such opportunity. The builder could be permitted only to argue legal questions, lapses, and non-admissibility of evidence. The Court found no error in the NCDRC's decision, as the builder could not bring forth anything admissible due to the forfeiture order. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the formula for payment of compensation for delay in handing over possession of flats, directing the developer to pay interest at 6% per annum from the due date till the date of offering possession.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
